Image 01 Image 03

Hillary Campaign Lawyer Acquitted of Lying to the FBI During Trump-Russia Probe

Hillary Campaign Lawyer Acquitted of Lying to the FBI During Trump-Russia Probe

Not surprised.

A jury found Michael Sussmann, a lawyer for Hillary’s campaign, not guilty of lying to the FBI in September 2016 during the Trump-Russia probe:

The jury on Tuesday found Michael Sussmann not guilty of making a false statement to the FBI in September 2016 when he said he was not working on behalf of any client, when he brought information alleging a covert communications channel between the Trump Organization and Russia’s Alfa Bank.

After a two week trial, and more than a day of deliberations, the jury found that Special Counsel John Durham’s team had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that Sussmann’s statement was a lie, and that he was, in fact, working on behalf of Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and technology executive Rodney Joffe when he brought two thumb drives and a white paper alleging a Trump-Russia connection.

The jury is questionable. One jury member has a kid on the same soccer team as Sussmann’s kid:

The jury included one federal government employee who told the judge they donated to Democrats in 2016 and another government employee who told the judge they “strongly” dislike former President Trump. Both of those jurors told the judge they could be impartial throughout the trial.

The jury also included a teacher, an illustrator, a mechanic and more. One juror had a child who was on the same high school sports team as Sussmann’s child.

The overwhelming majority of jurors selected told Cooper they had not heard of the case prior to jury service.


Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


Surprise, surprise.

This country is in free fall.

Further proof they prefer idiots on juries.

And who allowed the obviously biased juries? Guessing the prosecutors were only doing this for show and had no intention of really pursuing a conviction.

    The Gentle Grizzly in reply to Chewbacca. | May 31, 2022 at 12:41 pm

    Let’s throw in: how threatened were the jurors?

    JohnC in reply to Chewbacca. | May 31, 2022 at 1:22 pm

    Just going through the motions.

    mrtomsr in reply to Chewbacca. | May 31, 2022 at 1:59 pm

    I believe the indictment was brought the day before the statute of limitations expired. That means a tough case to begin with. Case was brought against an elite lawyer, tougher case, will be tried by a possible judge with bias, now looking impossible. Jonathan Turley says random DNC officers would be as impartial as the sitting jury.

    But did Durham accomplish anything? His speaking indictments opened a lot of eyes. I think all of his exhibits are now public record. Did he move the needle on a conspiracy? Time will tell.

    I honestly know nothing, but still believe that truth will win the war, just not every battle.

      ThePrimordialOrderedPair in reply to mrtomsr. | May 31, 2022 at 4:57 pm

      That means a tough case to begin with.

      They proved the case SIMPLY AND ABSOLUTELY (forget any notion of doubt at all).

      The jury just never intended to do anything but acquit … because Durham and his gang of fools, evidently, don’t know jack about picking juries.

        I am going to disagree with you on picking juries

        A) prosecutors dont get to argue for change of venue, virtually everyone in DC is a member of the swamp

        b) its the same reason Hillary will never get convicted. Impossible to exclude all the democrat voters from a jury pool

        Subotai Bahadur in reply to ThePrimordialOrderedPair. | May 31, 2022 at 6:33 pm

        Or one could make the argument that it was exactly the judge and jury that Durham wanted and exactly the result that he and his superiors wanted.

        Subotai Bahadur

      tbonesays in reply to mrtomsr. | May 31, 2022 at 9:30 pm

      Durham accomplished all that he could IMO. We know the crime and the criminal. The right to a jury is a powerful check on the will of the government. They cannot always convict everyone that includes the guilty.

Two groups that never should be in charge of anything important: lawyers and accountants. Prime example; very difficult to convict an attorney of anything that matters.

E Howard Hunt | May 31, 2022 at 12:52 pm

He wasn’t lying; he was just being economical with the truth.

The republic is dead…
We couldn’t keep it.

Posted by: gourmand du jour at May 31, 2022 12:15 PM (jTmQV)

    diver64 in reply to gonzotx. | May 31, 2022 at 2:55 pm

    Hush that wrongthink. Now, do what your overlords in The Cathedral tell you or you will be re-educated or canceled

I think the fix was in with Judge and Jury. If I had been on the Jury, however, I might have voted not guilty, also. If the FBI was in on the Russia Hoax, get Trump scam, highly likely, then Sussman didn’t lie, they were all on the same page from the beginning.

    Eddie Baby in reply to SHV. | May 31, 2022 at 2:10 pm

    That’s the positive spin on this verdict. Sussman didn’t lie because the FBI already knew what was up and why he was doing what he was doing, and he was giving the FBI what they wanted.

There is a very big problem that federal crimes like this will be tried in a courtroom of jurors who support the crime in question.

The evidence presented at court was so one sided even with the judge making sure that the prosecution was as restricted as possible.

Our justice system is not a particularly good one.

That said who wants to have those same jurors wield power of life and death over them?

With changing circumstances if we don’t change our institutionalism we will never make any kind of progress.

Really SHV?

Are your SHV the Dr from hillaryis44?

TheOldZombie | May 31, 2022 at 12:58 pm

Yep. Figured this would happen. Look at who was on the jury. All Democrats.

I’d bet anything that they admitted to each other in the jury room that Sussmann did lie to the FBI but they just don’t care because it’s ‘Trump’ and anything is fair game to stop him.

Same trial but Sussmann is said to have lied about to the FBI about Obama or Biden and he’d probably be convicted.

I expect the DOJ to start moving against Durham and trying to shut him down.

    r2468 in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 31, 2022 at 3:18 pm

    Durham is the spray paint covering Burr’s Bondo. Might as well close up shop if that is all he’s got.

    Lucifer Morningstar in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 31, 2022 at 4:22 pm

    I expect the DOJ to start moving against Durham and trying to shut him down.

    Not sure why that would be a problem. Durham spend three years “investigating” and after all that time all he indicted was a low-level Clinton campaign functionary for “lying to the FBI” and then bungled the trial and couldn’t even get a conviction. Can we afford to wait another three years before Durham pulls another indictment out of his ass? No. Should we even bother thinking that Durham will actually indict anyone of consequence anytime soon? Hell no. At this point, “Special Prosecutor” Durham is just a distraction that Republicans don’t need in the run-up to the Nov. 2022 midterm election & the 2024 presidential and should go. Go now.

Good to be a clinonista….
Jury took 6 hours

This judge, whose married to Lisa Pages lawyer by the way, wouldn’t let any damning evidence …

    Danny in reply to gonzotx. | May 31, 2022 at 1:02 pm

    I was hoping that the D.C. Jury would give us all a shock but Democrats do consider us subhuman and believe if one of us untermensch wins all options are on the table including breaking the law and any pushback against them is a punishable crime.

    This is one of the reasons I keep saying no protest in D.C., when D.C. police unleash antifa on you and arrest you for self defense which of those jurors will care you are legally in the right?

Old Soldier | May 31, 2022 at 1:05 pm

All the more reason to move as much of the federal departments out of the District of Columbia as possible. A demographic that skews at least ninety percent Democrat is not going to give a prosecutor in a false statements/dirty tricks case a fair shake.

    TheOldZombie in reply to Old Soldier. | May 31, 2022 at 1:10 pm

    Maybe the next Congress if GOP controlled and a GOP POTUS in 24 could start this process but I don’t see it happening. GOP leaders are too married to the system in DC to make any real changes.

      Mauiobserver in reply to TheOldZombie. | May 31, 2022 at 4:33 pm

      Yes to dispersing all the Fed bureaucracy throughout the country. Make it hard for the lobbyists to work the field. Hopefully a lot of the staff would decline to move to Oklahoma, Alabama, Utah etc. Then even better start hiring grads from the local schools and move away from the Ivy League and other leftist groups east and west coast indoctrination centers.

      As the line from the Untouchables says if the barrel is full of rotten apples then pick from the tree.

    Danny in reply to Old Soldier. | May 31, 2022 at 1:16 pm

    We had the chance in 2017, if we work as hard as possible and select the right candidate we may have the chance again 2025.

    txvet2 in reply to Old Soldier. | May 31, 2022 at 1:25 pm

    Robert Byrd did his best, but there’s only so much one senator can do.

    Eddie Baby in reply to Old Soldier. | May 31, 2022 at 2:07 pm

    It’s basically a Jim Crow style justice system in DC. Everybody knows the outcome before the verdict is rendered, and it’s dependent upon who is being prosecuted, not the evidence presented.

    smalltownoklahoman in reply to Old Soldier. | May 31, 2022 at 10:03 pm

    Why deliberately metastasize the cancer?

    Snark aside, I would instead favor doing away with as much of the bureaucracy as possible and reducing the power of that which remains, such as stripping away regulatory authority. Those are just laws by another name and creating law is supposed to be Congress’s job. The remaining bureaucracies can study issues, make recommendations on what needs to be done and how to do it, but it’s up to Congress to pass that into law. And if Congress doesn’t well too bad then, just have to wait a bit and see if the people will elect enough representatives & senators that might be willing to pass what they want into law.

    CincyJan in reply to Old Soldier. | June 1, 2022 at 10:46 am

    Any place where the government lands is likely to turn out the same. The bureaucracy lives there. It is Swampland throufgh and througfh.

After several hours of careful consideration of the evidence, the absolutely and totally non-partisan DC jury of Democrat donors in the Sussman trial found Trump guilty of being Bad Orange Man and sentenced him to death by firing squad.

I honestly don’t know why anybody is surprised by this. This was a show prosecution from the very start so the swamp RINOs could claim they ‘did something’.

DC is 95% Democrats. ANY trial in front of a DC jury will be irrevocably tainted.

No surprise here. I doubt anybody on this entire blog thought that there would be a conviction.

Remember when the Republicans forced their POTUS, Tricky Dick, out of office for illegal activity? Contrast that with how the Dims reacted to the litany of scandals out of the Clintoon, Obama and Biden* administrations.

A commenter at Powerline, a retired attorney with DOJ chops, was hoping for at best a hung jury. Several other esteemed observers, e.g. Margot Cleveland for one, prepared readers for an acquittal. Judge Cooper did the prosecution no favors, but legally the testimony was equivocal. Here’s hoping Durham has at least exposed all the shysters for what they are.

    TheOldZombie in reply to ekimremmit. | May 31, 2022 at 1:49 pm

    The problem with exposing them is that the media is a leftist organization so there is no real exposure. No one whose not on the right knows that there is testimony that Clinton is the one who authorized the whole damn thing.

    This is why convictions are so important because the media can’t hide a conviction from the public like they can hide testimony.

aramissebastian | May 31, 2022 at 2:21 pm

This was a dubious prosecution from the get-go.

The central flaw in the prosecution’s case was that anyone reasonably could/would have believed that a high-powered Washington DC attorney, with on-record ties to Democrats, was not acting at the behest of a client . . .
But what I really don’t get is, Trump won! So, why endlessly re-litigate the 2016 campaign?

And Trump himself did not help the narrative that Sussman was pushing unsuccessfully with his Russo-philia. Like, every time Trump praised Russia, folks who didn’t like him were like, where’s the dirt?

If your connected to the swamp or tick the correct intersectionality box you will never be convicted of anything. This was a dog and pony show that no sane person thought would amount to anything. There are two systems of justice in this country.
We are now a nation of men not laws

No way was a Clintoneasta getting a guilty verdict in Democraty Land. The two tier criminal laws are going to destroy the country. Leftists won’t get a guilty verdict no matter the crime. This was part of the Coup d’etat and its all gone away.

Comanche Voter | May 31, 2022 at 3:14 pm

It’s called getting “home towned”. In my litigating career it happened to me on a couple of occasions. Not much you can do about it–you do the best you can.

    Jury selection took less than a day. Several people with conflicts were allowed on the jury. That’s not much for a “best” effort.

    Jury selection in the Derek Chauvin trial took 3 weeks.

      aramissebastian in reply to Rabel. | May 31, 2022 at 9:21 pm

      Procedurally, Federal Court is a whole different animal from State Court.

      In State Court, jury selection, at least in my jurisdiction, is essentially unsupervised, and the lawyers can take as long as they want.

      In Federal Court, the judge conducts the actual jury selection, and the lawyers’ participation is limited to exercising their allotted challenges.

DC is about 93% Democrat and mostly government employees, there is no way they’d ever convict

Bruce Hayden | May 31, 2022 at 5:52 pm

The only viable way for the jury to have acquitted was if they determined Sussmann’s les about not working for Crooked Hillary not to have been material. That would essentially require that the jury believed that the FBI and DOJ knew that he worked for her, that the Alpha Bank hoax (along with the Steele Dossier hoax) had come from her campaign, and used it anyway. And this makes the FBI, in particular, look exceedingly venal and corrupt. They are now on record, thanks to Sussmann’s attorneys, with sworn testimony, that they had known where the Alpha Bank information had come from, didn’t care, and used it anyway, despite knowing it’s provenance, against Trump, their Constitutionally elected boss. Those attorneys essentially forced these former FBI and DOJ officials to admit that they, or at least their colleagues, had engaged in what is best described as treason, in their attempt to destroy the duly elected Trump’s Presidency.

    txvet2 in reply to Bruce Hayden. | May 31, 2022 at 6:25 pm

    More like, everybody lies to the FBI, and the FBI lies right back. No harm, no conviction.

    Danny in reply to Bruce Hayden. | June 1, 2022 at 12:55 am

    You couldn’t have done more overthinking if that was your dedicated goal. They voted to let him go because they fully approved of the crime nothing more.

Lying is a way of life in DC. The only crime for DC politicians and lawyers is if they do it poorly then it reflects badly on the rest of them.

The swamp declares one of the gators is actually a dove. World shocked.

Sussmann could have shot somebody right there in the middle of the trial and all he would have gotten was a noise ticket, and possibly one for littering.

Think about the Jan 6th protesters rotting in DC jails.

Pelosi is not only drunk, but drunk with power.

DC is like a cancerous appendix that needs to be snipped off.


Juror Who Acquitted Sussmann: ‘There Are Bigger Things’ Than Lying to FBI

Quelle Suprise.

Other sites are flat out calling this jury nullification. Somehow, lying to the FBI was cause to ruin Gen. Michael Flynn, but no big deal when a Democratic operative does it. We must NEVER alliow DC to become a state.

I read the transcripts of the trial pretty carefully, and am not going to be too hard on the Durham team. They did a pretty good job of showing the lie, via text message. But the notable “memory loss” and no notes taken on the part of James Baker allowed the Sussman team to imply that their client had possibly told Baker face to face who he was working for. Even if he didn’t, it is hard to imagine that Baker actually didn’t know that his friend wasn’t there on behalf of a client, notwithstanding his text message. I think Baker gave Sussman the door of reasonable doubt, and he walked through it.

There was also the question of materiality, and that wasn’t as cut and dried as we’d like it to be. One could argue that the FBI would have taken the same steps to investigate no matter what Sussman said. And the defense did make that argument. Having said all that, Durham’s team was facing a hostile jury that was never going to convict anyway.

I think the primary value of the trial was that Durham got some former FBI people on the record about their involvement with the Russia hoax, and he got Robbie Mook to testify to Clinton’s knowledge and approval of the disinformation campaign.

My main concern going forward is that the Special Counsel may not be free to make public his final report when it is completed, detailing the hoax. It is my understanding that this decision rests with the Attorney General, and I’m not at all certain that Merrick Garland will authorize publication when the report is complete. He may very well want to sweep it under the rug. And if he doesn’t, the mainstream media will make sure no one ever hears about the report’s contents, just like they suppressed the Hunter Biden laptop story. Sadly, I don’t think there is going to be any real accountability for the Russia hoax.

MSN reporting on NYTimes story:

“Within moments of the brief exchange, Mr. Samsel, a Pennsylvania barber, can be seen moving forward and confronting the police in what amounted to the tipping point of the riot. Despite lacking proof for their claims, many Republicans have surmised that Mr. Epps instructed Mr. Samsel to antagonize the officers.”

Because of this, the Times considers the Ray Epps story “debunked”.
Frankly, I have never held anybody talk about this particular incident from 6-Jan.